Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2475 14
Original file (NR2475 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

JDR
Decket No: 2475-14
30 March 2015

 

Dear Mr. Stone:

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552.

_ Although your application was not filed ina timely manner, the

Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute
of limitations and consider your application on its merits. A
three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on

10 March 2015. The names and votes of the members of the panel
will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted
of your application, together with all material submitted in
Support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes,
regulations, and policies.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice. ,

You enlisted in the Marine Corps, began a period of active duty
on 3 November 1987, and satisfactorily served for about 10
months without incident. On 13 October 1988, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for a 28 day pericd of unauthorized
absence.

During the period from 6 January to 13 March 1989, you received
NJP on three occasions for disobedience of a lawful order and
wrongful use of amphetamines/methamphetamines.
Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by
reason of misconduct due a pattern of misconduct. At that time
you waived your procedural rights. The discharge authority
approved a discharge under other than honorable conditions by
reason misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, and on 5 May
1989, you were so discharged.

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your record of service and desire to upgrade your discharge. It
also considered your assertion that you were told your discharge
would be upgraded six months after discharge. Nevertheless,
based on the information currently contained in your record, the
Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant
recharacterization of your discharge given your misconduct which
resulted in four NUPs. Further, with regard to your assertion,
be advised. that there is no provision in law or regulations that
allows for recharacterization automatically after six months.
Finally, the Board noted that you waived your procedural rights
which may have resulted in a better characterization of service.
Accordingly, your application has been denied.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence within one year from the date of the Board's
decision. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by
the Board prior to making its decision in your case. In this
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of
regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when
applying for a correction of an official naval record, the
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of
probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,,

ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5751 14

    Original file (NR5751 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 June 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11205-09

    Original file (11205-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 August 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all Material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05284-08

    Original file (05284-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4915 14

    Original file (NR4915 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 May 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Regarding your assertion, alcohol abuse may be a mitigating factor for misconduct; however, the Board felt your multiple incidents of misconduct prior...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR621 14

    Original file (NR621 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 February 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11198-07

    Original file (11198-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 26 February 1992 an ADB recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6666 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR6666 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03991-09

    Original file (03991-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 March 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR646 14

    Original file (NR646 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of ~ your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. Consequently, when applying For a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5464 14_Redacted

    Original file (NR5464 14_Redacted.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 June 2015. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Subsequently, administrative discharge action was initiated by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.